Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

In the Pipeline: 6/12/13

June 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Is this guy still alive? I figured he drowned after his beach house was overtaken by rising seas. Politico (6/11/13) reports: “Former Vice President Al Gore lamented today that scientists “will not let us link record-breaking” tornadoes in Oklahoma and elsewhere to climate change because of inadequate record keeping on the twisters… ‘But when you put more energy into a system, it gets more energetic,’ Gore said at an environmental event in Washington hosted by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.”

Everyone loves to jump out in front of a parade. This time, we hope the marching band doesn’t slow down and leaves these goons in the dust. RedState (6/11/13) reports: “So after restricting the food supply, starving children, driving up your grocery bill and increasing the cost of fuel, was the government done yet? Of course not! Because now they want to expand it!… Unbelievably enough, Republicans are jumping on board… Not content with the destruction currently in the RFS Mandate’s wake, Reps. Pete Olson and Joe Barton (R-TX) are pushing HR. 1959 which would expand the RFS mandate to include natural gas based ethanol.”

I wonder how the NRDC would feel if it were routed through the neighborhoods of rich, white folks. Or, as the NRDC likes to call them, donors. Daily Caller (6/11/13) reports: “The rail project will be built in Wilmington, a suburb located near the ports. The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups, however, claim that the project targets LA minority communities… ‘The SCIG project typifies environmental racism,” David Pettit, director of the NRDC’s Southern California air program and urban program, said in a statement. “This project can be built away from where people live and children go to school, but the city of Los Angeles wants to put it in a low-income minority neighborhood because they think they can get away with it.’”

Again, what does it mean to “deny carbon”? Are we still talking about the same element on the periodic table? If these people want to have a serious debate about our energy future, they should first brush up on basic physics. Oh right… they don’t want to have a serious debate. E&ENews (6/11/13) reports: “‘Frankly, to be a carbon denier at this point in the development of the facts is to be one short step away from insane,’ he said. ‘You just can’t logically support that point of view.’… Whitehouse said the political tide appeared to be turning against members who dismiss climate concerns. Polls show that more Americans believe in climate change and support action on it. And he pointed to billionaire investor Tom Steyer’s involvement in the Massachusetts Democratic primary, which helped shift the race toward climate advocate Rep. Ed Markey and away from Rep. Stephen Lynch, who had voted in support of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.”

We already know that the Sierra Club doesn’t like human beings, but do they only like wolves, and not elk? What about chickens and cattle? The problem is that wolves in states like Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are thriving unchecked, which leads to the less desirable policy of shoot, shovel, and shut up. At least now we can have a more open and honest discussion about hunting policies and resource management. Sierra Club (6/12/13) reports: “Wolves Thrown to the Dogs: On Friday, the Obama administration let us down, proposing to strip nearly all gray wolves of their Endangered Species Act protections. Delisting wolves now would turn back the clock on years of hard-won recovery work, and it could finish off this legendary species in the Lower 48 for good. We need your help.”

It’s hard to believe that this story was able to cut through all the noise. It’s a great read: “Please, frack beneath my farm”. NY Daily News (6/9/13) reports: “Being a farmer myself, I want to be clear: There is nothing in natural gas production that conflicts with the work we do. In fact, I am hard-pressed to see how utilizing the fertility of the space beneath our fields conflicts with being good stewards of the land above. I like to be consistent and rational, and no matter which way I look at this, it remains a win-win. Cleaner energy from below, crops from above… My family derives its livelihood from farming in upstate New York. Over the course of the past 25 years, we have milked cows, raised sheep and planted and harvested field crops. We have worked from sunrise to sunset, oftentimes seven days a week, all the time laboring to ensure our land is kept healthy and productive.”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/11/13

June 11, 2013 by Leave a Comment

We mentioned the “social cost of carbon” last week, but here’s the full analysis. The Obama administration is quietly making it easier for their “benefit” numbers to go head to head against costs. IER (6/6/13) reports: “The very concept of the ‘social cost of carbon’ is not nearly as objective and scientific as, say, the charge on an electron. It is based on subjective human decisions as to which scenarios to include in the model, the discount rate to apply to future costs and benefits, and how to deal with uncertainty. Especially in light of the fact that these modeling choices keep pushing the official estimates up and up—more than doubling in some cases in just three years—one can’t help but wonder whether there is a desire to ease the case for political action at work. In any event, the public should realize just how ‘unsettled’ the economic side of the carbon debate is. The estimates keep bouncing around all over the place, and the estimates are driven by very controversial parameter choices, not objective assessments given by physicists and climatologists.”

Apparently, the New York Times did not get the memo that the science is settled. NYTimes (6/10/13) reports: “As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming… The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace… The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.”

Meet Tim Yeo. Tim is the Al Gore of the U.K. Tim is just getting started. Hold onto your wallets, blokes. MailOnline (6/9/13) reports: “Tim Yeo was challenged in an interview last week over his role as chairman of the Commons energy and climate change committee and his lucrative work with the green industry… A former environment minister, he airily dismissed any suggestion of a conflict of interest, even though last year alone he earned £140,000 from his commercial work, much of it to do with the booming business of green energy… ‘I think it’s hard for anyone to sustain the argument that what I’m doing is the result of financial interests. I will stand and fall by the judgment of my peers on the committee,’ he said.”

The bonds of kinships are being used by His Majesty’s court to wage war against the commoners. No wonder DOE’s stimulus babies turned out to be a little whacky… Energy Guardian (6/10/13) reports: “Energy Department officials and employees routinely seek paid internships for their children and relatives despite internal warnings against nepotism, the agency’s internal  watchdog reported Monday… ‘Despite the department’s ethics program and information regarding prohibited personnel practices, advocating for the selection of relatives appears to have become an open and widely accepted departmental practice,’ Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman wrote.”

This is why we fight for energy that real people can afford. The Economist (6/8/13) reports: “LIKE most Pakistanis Mohammad Hussain complains bitterly about the paltry few hours of electricity available each day during the sweltering summer. Life for the 43-year-old labourer, already pretty miserable in the Lahore slum where he lives, is more unbearable without a fan to cool him at night or a pump to guarantee water… Like many of his countrymen, he has never paid a rupee towards the cost of the dribble of electricity used by his wife and five children, who all live in a one-bedroom flat. Their building is illegally connected to the city’s power grid by a metal hook attached to a nearby electricity line.”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/10/13

June 10, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Somewhere down the road, we might find ourselves switching back to PCs. You see, Apple used to be led by a man who was disturbed by the stifling impact of government on business and innovation in this country. Jobs was able to navigate this business environment and still build incredible value for all stakeholders. Today, Apple’s leadership is hiring Lisa Jackson to whitewash the company of the sin of success. Huffington Post (12/20/11) reports: “‘You’re headed for a one-term presidency,’ he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them… Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was ‘crippled by union work rules,’ noted Isaacson. ‘Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.’ Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.”

What’s the big deal? It’s not like we live in a free country or anything. Human Events (6/7/13) reports: “Another scandal in which the Obama Administration appears to have leaked confidential information for political purposes has reached the Senate.  The Washington Free Beacon reports on a bipartisan letter challenging the Environmental Protection Agency for releasing personal data on 80,000 farmers and livestock operations to environmentalist groups:”

What planet are these people living on? The bad guys worship “science”, yet here they are talking about energy as if the laws of physics are an outdated inconvenience. The Economist (6/7/13) reports: “Grid parity—when renewables are as cheap or cheaper than existing sources of energy—is within reach in America. The benefits will be immense. Public support for renewable energy remains high; wind and solar power are easily the most popular forms of energy in America (coal comes last). The politics, too, are less obvious than one might think. Many deep-red rural states such as South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas rather like wind power. These states have enormous wind resources and even though many of their politicians are sceptical about climate change, they are keen on the wind industry (and the PTC). Wind power allows rural states to diversify their economies and bring well-paying jobs to locations with little else going for them.”

The greenies need the environment to be “under attack” in order to justify their existence. So it only makes sense that blocking Keystone XL will do more damage to the environment than allowing its construction, and that Europeans are burning “renewable” wood chips that have been imported from yours truly, America. This article pretty much sums it up: these people are wackos. National Review Online(6/6/13) reports: “The Euros could reduce emissions the way the good old U.S.A. is doing, by hydraulically fracturing deep shale for natural gas. That increases supply to the point that it displaces coal for electrical generation, which results in cheaper power and half the carbon dioxide emissions. They could, but the same nutsos who think that reducing their emissions will have a detectable effect on global temperature also think shale gas is yucky… Why won’t they go our way? Because the green world is stark, raving mad… Destroying the forest for the good of the environment is insane, right? So is shaking down auto companies that produce profits by selling cars rather than indulgences, and so is giving folks who buy $100,000 cars an average of $10,000 of taxpayer largesse.”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/7/13

June 7, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It’s nice to see they don’t think people are as stupid as the EPA does. Washington Post (6/6/13) reports: “As U.C. Berkeley’s Catherine Wolfram explains in an interesting new post, this “MPG illusion” could have huge implications for the auto market. Many people who are set on buying SUVs, say, appear to underrate the fuel savings that come from buying a slightly more efficient SUV. But as the example above shows, those gains are often quite large… It might turn out that one easy way to boost fuel economy doesn’t involve any new regulations or taxes at all — just a small tweak on a sticker.”

You can wave a carrot or a stick, but it’s still government control.Yahoo News (5/30/13) reports: “Pennsylvania environmental officials are offering $10 million worth of incentives to companies, government agencies and nonprofits for the purchase of cars or light trucks that run on natural gas or to convert lighter-weight vehicles that now use gasoline… The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection launched the program Wednesday in a bid to generate demand for natural gas vehicles. A drilling boom in Pennsylvania and other states in recent years has produced enormous quantities of cheap gas… The DEP grant program is open to nonprofit organizations, companies, local governments and local transportation agencies for natural gas vehicles weighing less than 14,000 pounds. The program also covers conversion or purchase of electric, propane or other alternative fuel vehicles of any size.”

Something is awfully wrong in a country when there is a debate about whether or not to use wildly expensive (and dirty) biofuels or affordable and efficient petroleum products. What’s worse is that these are the people who are supposed to be thinking strategically about national defense. PoliticoPro (6/7/13) reports: House lawmakers sparred Wednesday over the DoD’s clean energy initiatives during the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act… Led by Reps. Rob Wittman, Randy Forbes and Mike Conaway, Republicans pushed an amendment that would restrict the ability of the Defense Department to purchase or produce biofuels until sequestration is no longer in effect or when the price of biofuel equals the cost of conventional fuel… The amendment, sponsored by Conaway, revived last year’s fight over the Navy’s use of alternative energy, a charge that was led by Forbes. During last year’s debate, much of the language that would have limited the DoD’s ability to purchase biofuels was scrubbed from the defense bill’s final version.

Couple shy of a baker’s dozen: “11 Shocking Facts about the North Dakota Oil Boom”. The Fiscal Times (6/7/13) reports: “Oil production in North Dakota has increase more than 600 percent, going from 36 million barrels of oil in 2005, to 237 million in 2012. There are now 8,360 active wells in the state, producing 783,000 barrels of oil a day. The state has gone from the No. 8 oil-producing state to No. 2 in just seven years.”

It’s not enough to be willing to take a bullet. You have to be uncomfortable while waiting for it. Department of the Army (2/12/13) reports: “During air conditioning season, keep temperatures in the range of 78 degrees for occupied building and 85 degrees for unoccupied buildings. Air conditioning units that have thermostatic controls must be operated to comply with the authorized cooling temperatures. The DPW will maintain appropriate cooling temperatures for those systems controlled by the Energy Management Control System (EMCS).”

We don’t have a book review for you yet, but this looks like it’ll be an awesome read. PJ Media (5/29/13) reports: “Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle With Environmental Extremists and Why it Matters Today: Reagan deprived these extremists of the aura of inevitability, invincibility and infallibility with which they had been cloaked for almost two decades. Reagan denied them their moral high ground. When they said they spoke for the planet and the needs of all living things not human, he responded that he spoke for the dream of the American people and unborn generations to be free and prosperous… The future of freedom was also in play. And Reagan knew that a nation which develops abundant energy resources is a nation which prospers. Governments which impair energy production and instead use command economy solutions to prop up inefficiencies will suffer from high energy costs and higher unemployment.”

The team is still very much opposed to a carbon tax. Please contact us at [email protected] if you wish to join our growing ranks.

Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Myron Ebell, Freedom Action
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
William O’Keefe, George C. Marshall Institute
Lawson Bader, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Andrew Quinlan, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Joe Bast, Heartland Institute
David Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research
Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America
Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Sabrina Schaeffer, Independent Women’s Forum
Barrett E. Kidner, Caesar Rodney Institute
George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom
Thomas A. Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Bill Wilson, Americans for Limited Government
Wayne Brough, FreedomWorks
Rich Collins, Positive Growth Alliance
Craig Richardson, American Tradition Institute

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/6/13

June 6, 2013 by Leave a Comment

This is like those movies where the parents arrange for their kid to be kidnapped so they can cash in on the ransom. It never ends well. IER(6/5/13) reports: “One of the tactics environmental activists groups use to promote greater regulatory control over the economy is lawsuits. This is an especially effective tactic if environmental groups sue a sympathetic administration with the hopes of settling the lawsuit without the need for the administration to go through the regular regulatory process. This is dubbed ‘Sue and Settle.’ One of the most effective ways for these lawsuits to proceed is for the environmental litigant to sue the EPA, for example, for a missed deadline, and then enter into a settlement that allows the EPA to quickly enact new regulations while claiming that it was forced to do so by the terms of the lawsuit.”

Do as I say, not as I do. Huffington Post (6/5/13) reports: “The chairman of the board of a leading environmental advocacy group is also a hedge fund manager, and his firm is heavily invested in the oil giant BP, according to financial documents… League of Conservation Voters Chairman Scott Nathan is chief risk officer at The Baupost Group, a major hedge fund, and a member of the firm’s management committee, which oversees investments.”

The WaPo refers to it as a “small tweak”. We’d call it an abuse of power. Either way, this article is a good reminder that the brakes have been cut on Obama’s regulatory train and the engineer bailed before that last tunnel. Washington Post (6/5/13) reports: “Sort of. A larger value for the social cost of carbon basically means that any efficiency standard or air-pollution regulation that reduces carbon-dioxide emissions will have higher benefits assigned to it. That could, in theory, make it easier for stricter standards to pass a cost-benefit analysis test, says Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch… We got an early glimpse of this with the Energy Department’s microwave rule. Under the old social cost of carbon, the microwave standards had an estimated $4.2 billion in benefits over the next 30 years. Under the new carbon numbers, the microwave rule has an estimated $4.6 billion in benefits. (The agency has the authority to tighten standards for household appliances, so this could well come up again.)… This might sound like nitpicking. But seeing as how much of the Obama administration’s climate-change agenda will likely be carried out through the Environmental Protection Agency, this small tweak could make a big difference in the years ahead.”

Not everything has to be an either/or in life, but that’s the way the bad guys see it. It will be interesting to see how this vintage turns out.Colorado Public Radio (6/5/13) reports: “It’s Colorado Wine week. Restaurants and bars all over the state are hosting happy hours, tastings and even wine-inspired cocktail contests. Wineries from the North Fork Valley are featuring many of their latest creations. The area in western Colorado has been compared to France’s Provence region. However, vintners in the region worry their future is threatened by the oil and gas boom. Energy companies are trying to lease thousands of acres of land bordering vineyards. Brent Helleckson is the owner of Stone Cottage Cellars in Paonia. He spoke to Colorado Matter’s Lesley McClurg.”

Don’t forget to join us tomorrow at “high noon” if you are in DC. We’ll enjoy food, a lively debate, and the unveiling of IER’s new subsidy database. Register here: 

5.28.13_AEA_SaveTheDateab4d10

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Heritage Foundation: Carbon Caps a “Cure Worse Than the Disease”

June 5, 2013 by Leave a Comment

In a new study, the Heritage Foundation estimates that recent proposals to limit carbon dioxide emissions in the United States would be a cure worse than the disease. In particular, by the year 2100 the cumulative net damages to the world economy could exceed an astonishing $100 trillion, and in not a single year do the benefits exceed the costs.

The Heritage analysis is based on a new approach to gauging the economic impacts from climate change. As the report explains:

A recent paper by Melissa Dell and her coauthors[1]…analyzed 125 countries over 55 years to estimate the impact of warming on each country’s GDP. By focusing on the impact on overall economic activity, they include all the negative and positive impacts of warming on income. Their statistical technique uses annual changes in temperature and avoids the problems of a simple cross-country comparison.

They found that countries with above-average income for the sample period suffered no impact from warming. On the other hand, countries with below-average income suffered a significant 1.3 percentage point decrease in their growth rate for each degree (Celsius) increase in temperature.

In addition to being based on actual empirical results, the Dell et al. results make sense intuitively: The faster a region’s economic growth, the better its people are equipped to deal with changing conditions. For example, rising temperatures per se don’t lead to increased mortality among the elderly. But in a country with no air conditioning, hotter summers could be deadly. 

Based on the quantitative findings of the Dell et al. study, the Heritage analysis looks at the carbon restraints implicit in proposals such as the Lieberman-Warner and Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bills, as well as the more recent Boxer-Sanders carbon tax plan. Specifically, the Heritage plans shows that an 80 percent reduction in US emissions by 2050 would lead to:

  • An aggregate income loss to the U.S. of $207.8 trillion by 2100;
  • An aggregate income loss worldwide of $109.6 trillion by 2100;
  • A one-year worldwide loss of $3.5 trillion in 2100, equivalent to 4.75 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP); and
  • Adverse impacts, on net, in every year of implementation.

The proponents of massive new federal regulations to restrict carbon-intensive economic activity continually remind Americans that “the science is settled.” By this, they are referring to the majority of natural scientists—people such as climatologists, physicists, and chemists—who agree that humans are at least partially responsible for rising global temperatures since 1850.

However, it is far from “settled” that the proper policy response is a massive penalty applied to carbon dioxide emissions, particularly if that policy is a unilateral action by the U.S. government (as opposed to a coordinated global enforcement). There are many economists who argue that in light of the uncertainties and the problems with government “solutions,” the safest and most robust response to the risks of climate change is robust economic growth, which will give our children and grandchildren greater wealth with which to address their specific problems.

Far from “doing nothing,” a policy of economic freedom is one that works both in theory and practice. Historically, the societies with the fastest increases in the standard of living—even if we include criteria measuring environmental quality—are those embracing free-market capitalism. 


[1] Melissa Dell, Benjamin F. Jones, and Benjamin A. Olken, “Temperature Shocks and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, Vol. 4, No. 3 (July 2012), pp. 66–95.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards, News, Products and Power, Threats Tagged With: , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/5/13

June 5, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It must be so convenient to have an explanation for everything. The Guardian (6/3/13) reports: “Piraino said at least 150,000 people were treated for jellyfish stings around the Mediterranean each summer… Global warming, overfishing and human intervention – especially breakwaters that protect sandy beaches but provide a home for larvae – are all blamed. As predators disappear, population surges are happening with greater frequency.”

The EPA is clearly devoted to the development of a “strong” workforce. After all, these folks are America’s front line of defense against the rising tide of jellyfish. National Journal (6/3/13) reports: “Employees at an Environmental Protection Agency warehouse in Landover, Md., worked out in a makeshift gym while conditions inside the facility ‘were rotting and becoming potentially hazardous,’ according to an EPA inspector general report issuedon Monday… ‘Deplorable conditions existed in the warehouse,’ the report by Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. states. “Door jambs were corroded; dirt, dust and vermin feces were pervasive; and several items were rotting and potentially hazardous.” The report found that the 70,000-square-foot warehouse—one of EPA’s largest—was storing large amounts of expensive, unused equipment, ranging from computers to pianos. It also found numerous security and safety issues… They also created a makeshift gym spanning an area larger than 30 feet by 45 feet. While exercising, employees apparently listened to music and used EPA steno pads to record workouts, according to the report.”

Tom Kiernan makes the sky blue. Of course, he also kills birds for a living. With taxpayer money. Huffington Post (6/4/13) reports: “This latest move reflects a feeling I’ve had since childhood that I want to make the biggest difference I can to preserve the natural environment. I spent a large portion of childhood exploring the woods across the street from my house and then seized the opportunity in high school to take an environmental chemistry class. It was there I learned about acid rain, which inspired me to create a college major in Environmental Computer Modeling… Years later, when I was a deputy of the Air Office in EPA working on the Clean Air Act, my four-year old son asked me what I did. I explained that I helped to get dirt out of the air. My son looked at me and simply replied, ‘You make the sky blue.’”

This administration is so bizarre. They act like we can learn something from Brazil on how to produce energy. WSJ (6/4/13) reports: “Joe Biden: The Americas Ascendant: For Brazil, as for the U.S., one of the most important frontiers is energy. From biofuels to deep-water oil reserves to shale gas to hydroelectric, Brazil is energy-rich, and that has tremendous implications globally. Brazil already is a leading expert in renewables and deep-water extraction, but both of our countries can advance further if we work together. I know from my meeting with President Rousseff that Brazil is equally committed to an energy partnership.”

This is confusing. We’re meant to believe that fossil fuels are part of the “old energy” economy, and you ain’t cool if you like things that are old. But now we learn that the Romans were hip sustainable guys, so is it cool to like things that are old again?Either way, the Romans would probably agree that it is not wise to organize entire industries because something is fashionable. US News (6/4/13) reports: “Monteiro and his colleagues may have found an alternative: “sea” concrete used by Romans for harbor installations in the Mediterranean is made with a different concentration of materials than today’s mix of limestone and clay, which allowed it to be baked at a much lower temperature (about 1,650 degrees, compared to 2,640 degrees for modern “Portland” concrete). The result is a strong concrete that is less harmful to the environment.”

One of the Facebook bazillionaires is getting slammed for his tendentious, albeit indirect support for Keystone XL. But apparently the crazies give Facebook execs a free pass to bulldoze old growth forests for what sounds like an extravagant wedding. And to be clear, it’s the double standard that bothers us, not the rather ostentatious wedding affair. The Atlantic (6/4/13) reports: “Hey, if a billionaire couple wants to spend $10 million on their wedding, it’s neither all that surprising nor interesting, as far as I’m concerned. So, when news and statistics started to trickle out about Sean Parker’s wedding here in California — namely that it’d cost millions of dollars to create Kardashian-level over-the-topness — I was ready to chalk it up to the standard excesses of crazy rich people… But that was before I read the California Coastal Commission’s report on the Parker wedding’s destructive, unpermitted buildout in a redwood grove in Big Sur. Parker and Neraida, the LLC he created to run his wedding, ended up paying $2.5 million in penalties for ignoring regulations. (Move fast. Break things.)”

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/4/13

June 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Let’s talk about energy subsidies (on Friday). Join us with the National Review for lunch and a “High Noon Debate” to talk about the energy subsidy experiment. 
5.28.13_AEA_SaveTheDateab4d10

Greenpeace has given you permission to not feel guilty about climate change. You see, oil companies are using your honorable sense of personal responsibility as a weapon against your consciousness. (Heads up: this is a spoiler alert for the sequel to Inception, starring guilt-free-carbon-guzzler Leo DiCaprio). LA Times (6/2/13) reports: “Maybe it’s time for us to remove the guilt. Yes, I drive a car that runs on gasoline. I fly for work when necessary and occasionally for vacation. But doing these things is not the same as admitting they are inevitable. Five years ago I flew more; now I use Skype. Bike lanes have been newly painted in my neighborhood, so I cycle to the store. In a couple of years, electric cars might come into my price range. In the meantime, I refuse to feel guilty… In the battle against climate change, we should not be waging guilt trips on one another. Rather, we should take the fight to those who use our sense of personal responsibility against us. Climate change is a problem, and we must fix it. But it’s certainly not our fault.”

If you can’t show them the light, make ’em feel the heat. Red State (5/31/13) reports: “At a critical Friday meeting in Vienna, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will set production policy. For the first time, they will be grappling with the challenges of shale oil, even none of the member states are major shale oil producers… The shale boom began in the U.S. as a ripple in North Dakota and Texas. Some thought its impact would be limited and regional, not global. Now that uptick on our domestic production curve has triggered a tsunami with geopolitical implications.”

Listen up – our man in Houston has an ear to the ground on these things… Forbes (6/3/13) reports: “But if Obama was really attuned to job creation, he should have been shaking hands and pumping his fist at the annual Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) in Houston where hundreds of oil and natural gas firms from around the world were sharing their latest technology—and looking for workers. Attendance of 105,000 was a 30-year high… The buzz at OPC was about ‘subsea factories,’ ‘a global bonanza,’ and ‘thousands of new technologies.’ ‘We have to innovate at a faster pace,’ said technologist Gregory Powers of Halliburton, which has been rushing to keep up with consumer demand since 2010.”

I thought the only thing you needed on your resume to drill for oil was “evil”? Rig Zone (6/3/13) reports: “Everybody’s recruiting,” said James Bradley, permanent hire recruitment manager with NES Global Talent, at the sidelines of AAPG’s annual meeting… Demand is particularly keen for drilling and well completions engineers, subsurface geologists, geophysicists and geochemists, Bradley said, adding that there are not enough specialists with direct experience developing a shale gas play. As a result, operators are wooing candidates with conventional onshore oil and gas experience ‘who can jump right into shale work,’ he noted. He acknowledged this is often easier said than done.”

Despite all the headache and red tape here at home, be thankful that we avoid these in the Federal Register: Rind(Cow) fleisch(meat) etikettierungs(carbon emission label) überwachungs(monitoring) aufgaben(duties) übertragungs(transmission) gesetz(law). The Telegraph (6/3/13) reports: “Germany’s longest word – Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz –  a 63-letter long title of a law regulating the testing of beef, has officially ceased to exist.”

You_keep_using_that_word

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 6/3/13

June 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

This is fun. It’s like an 8th grade math question: “If Bob Inglis is running for elected office, is it wise for him to support a carbon tax?”. R Street (5/31/13) reports: “The R Street Institute and the Heartland Institute cordially invite you to a debate among friends on the question: Are there any circumstances under which conservatives should support a tax on carbon emissions?”

Gee, now they admit it. The Hill (6/1/13) reports: “Environmental lobbyists are pressing President Obama to turn more western lands into national monuments to prevent oil-and-gas companies from drilling there… The Sierra Club is leading the charge and is sweetening its message with political sugar, saying Obama could thereby help Democrats win House and Senate seats in midterm elections year.”

Stewart Udall was right. The environmental movement is fundamentally anti-people and mostly racist. But the Sierra Club and the rest of the leadership are now just adjuncts of the Democratic Party. Politico (6/1/13) reports: Environmentalists are getting off the sidelines and backing immigration reform — but it wasn’t easy… During the Senate’s last go round on the issue in 2007, greens stayed silent to avoid airing their dirty laundry — an internal dispute that some in the movement feared would be seen as racist… Their family feud was so rough that it twice nearly ruptured the Sierra Club when a vocal faction — including some of the movement’s leading luminaries — argued too many new immigrants living the American dream could spell doom for the planet.”

While your flight was in a holding pattern due to FAA furloughs, which oh by the way means the plane was burning fuel unnecessarily, the federal government was busy patting itself on the back with “green energy scorecards”. Maybe His Majesty’s jesters wouldn’t have to make embarrassing stunts to justify their bloated budgets if they spent less time handing out participation trophies at frivolous conferences and conventions.PoliticoPro (5/31/13) reports: “As part of the Obama Administration’s initiative to reduce energy use, pollution and waste and save money in Federal operations, Federal agencies today released annual updates that show significant progress toward energy and sustainability goals. Under Executive Order 13514, President Obama directed Federal agencies to reduce their carbon pollution, increase renewable energy use, and meet energy and water efficiency goals. These annual performance scorecards benchmark agencies’ progress and help them to target the best opportunities to improve their energy efficiency and reduce costs and waste in their operations moving forward.”

We took a shot at the ski industry last week, but our friends kick it up a notch and really stomp the point home. POWERLINE (5/31/13) reports: “Skiers use energy to haul mass uphill, only to slide back down hill, over and over again. They fly or drive long distances to get to places that are cold (requiring heated facilities). While there, they consume goods that are hauled long-distances and up hill. The perishable goods have to be refrigerated (think about that for a minute). Virtually everything they wear (and their gear) is made from petroleum. From a thermodynamic perspective, you would have a hard time designing a more greenhouse-gas-intensive activity than skiing. Vanity space flight, perhaps… But the companies involved would like some green-washing courtesy of the government: they want legislation that would let them claim they’re doing good (“We’re paying our carbon tax!”) when in reality, they’ll pass their direct costs onto the skiers (who can afford it), while the majority of the costs of carbon control imposed on the general public

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 5/31/13

May 31, 2013 by Leave a Comment

For some of us, this hits close to home. So I have a few suggestions: Quit bragging about the non-stop flights that are offered from Newark to Jackson. Shut down the tram (it runs on coal). Stop selling skis, boots, jackets and goggles because they are made with carbon-based petrochemicals. And those of us who are still (physically) able can hike to the top of Rendezvous and ski on wooden boards like the good ol’ days. Unless that sounds like a good plan, quit begging for the heavy hand of the EPA and Congress to strangle your own industry. Wyoming Business Report(5/29/13) reports: “The past ski season was a banner year for our guests and for our resort, but we can’t gamble on the weather in an uncertain climate. We have to take action,” said Jerry Blann, president of Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in Wyoming. “Resorts have made tremendous efforts to raise awareness on the issue of climate change and to adjust our operations to reduce carbon emissions and manage resources efficiently. We need Washington to take those strategies seriously through stronger policies.”

Like we’ve always said, the science is settled. Phys.org (5/30/13) reports: “Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week…  ‘Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,’ said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. ‘In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.’”

Next up in California, a lifeguard is required to hold your hand as you walk out into the waves. It’s a great program that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for new lifeguards while ensuring the safety of the population; it’s not at all creepy and overbearing; and it certainly won’t erode your sense of personal responsibility and good citizenship. NYTimes (5/30/13) reports: “But these days, a blizzard of restrictions — on everything from dogs to playing horseshoes — is being imposed on beach activities up and down the coast, turning beaches into sanitized zones that longtime beachgoers say barely resemble the freewheeling places they once knew… Smoking is banned at many beaches across the state. On San Diego beaches, playing ball or tossing a Frisbee has been outlawed. Alcohol is no longer allowed on the sand in Huntington Beach. Even surfing is restricted to designated areas here, though this is ‘Surf City.’… And the next thing to go could be the fire pits — concrete rings designed to contain bonfires — which for many people are enduring features of a free, outdoor California lifestyle.”

In a nutshell, the EPA is a very dangerous agency. Washington Post(5/30/13) reports: “A Wednesday shootout on the streets of Washington Highlands left a cop injured and a carjacking suspect dead. But before the suspect expired, he went on an unusual ambulance ride that involved moving him from one vehicle to another on the shoulder of Interstate 295. While this might appear to be another story of Fire and Emergency Medical Services dysfunction, the story is rather more complicated. As WUSA-TV explains, newer-model diesel engines are required by federal regulations to have emission-control features that, in some circumstances, require the motor to shut down for “regeneration” — a process in which the exhaust system burns off trapped soot.”

Big talk for a guy with the largest “carbon footprint” on the planet. Maybe he should lead by example (cough cough) and do more of his celebrity fundraisers via Skype or Google hangout. Weekly Standard(5/30/13) reports: “Obama: ‘I Don’t Have Much Patience for People Who Deny Climate Change’… ‘My only interest is making sure that when I look back 20 years from now, I say I accomplished everything that I could while I had this incredible privilege to advance the interests of the broadest number of Americans and to make sure that this country was stronger and more prosperous than it was when I came into office.  That’s my only interest,’ the president said.”

Join us next Friday for a luncheon and panel discussion hosted by National Review and the American Energy Alliance! Get a spot while they’re hot…

High_Noon_Debate

Filed Under: Blog, In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , ,
Previous
Next